Architect Archive
Thread: Higher extraction rate harvesters.... You gotta be crazy!
GogoDodo wrote:
Orlaith wrote:What's worse is these muppets who sell ALL resources at 2.5cpu. Yes, they sell the absolutely useless to the premium grade resources and all for the low, low price of 2.5 cpu. It's an undercut in the market. It's ruining the market.crap, i'm a muppet.Well selling all my stuff at 2.5 cpu seemed like a good idea at the time, guess i should revisit it though.G
Not to me. i sell ALL for 3 cpu, and I will not change. charging someone 40cpu for something is what is "ruining the market". That is just insane to me.
If it bothers people that I actually charge a fair price on my resorces and equipment or harvesters, oh well.
I don't think there is an easy answer to these problems. Decaying resources sounded like a good idea but when I thought about it I think it would be an absolute nightmare. It can take quite a while to collect different resources to make schematics for factories and it would be a complete headache trying to keep track of them if the durally steel I had from 3 months ago had decayed to 50%, the vintrium ore had decayed to 80%, the aluminium at 90%, the copper at 68%....does anyone else feel the same? I would be an even bigger nightmare for other professions such as weaponsmiths that require more specific resources than us architects. While the market for resources is saturated, the demand for high quality and specific resources remains quite high.
With resources decaying, it would just encourage stockpiling in a different way....stockpiling crates of finished goods rather than the raw materials, so I don't see it as really being a solution.
I'm not sure that making harvesters require skills to use is a solution either. I think that would result in a shortage of resources and rediculously high prices since many people don't have the skills points to invest. Merchant will be fixed soonand having multiple vendors and advertising will require skillpoints...there just isn't enough points to go round.
Maybe the concentrations of resources should be lowered. I think that 80% and 90% aretoo common.And maybe refine the resourcespawn system so that only certain resources appear on certain planets. I never understood how you can get high concentrations of water and floraon Tattoine and Lok! This would make it harder to get resources as you would avoid the current system wherethe same resources canappear on almost every planet.
dulee wrote:
Maybe the concentrations of resources should be lowered. I think that 80% and 90% aretoo common.And maybe refine the resourcespawn system so that only certain resources appear on certain planets.
Finally somebody in this thread said it! Why are we looking at complex and controversial solutions like resource decay when the simple solution is staring us in the face?
If resources are too abundant or too scarce they should be tweaked at the source.
/rant
Also I am tired of players complaining about so-called under cutters who sell resources at 2.5 cpu. That is still 4-5 times the production costs! It is NOT undercutting unless they sell them below costs.(around .6-.7 cpu) Ok, so they hamper your ability to sell resources at 4-6 cpu like you used to, too bad! I would like to sell resources at 10-20 cpu, but I can’t. People can sell at any price they want, that’s the ‘price’ we pay for a free market economy. If that forces my prices down I may not like it (and I don’t), but I have to accept it.
/endrant
They need to take Harvesters away from non-crafters.
Better yet, we need the MINER profession!
Zutan wrote:
Does it cost you more to extract the so called "premium" resources? Of course not.. so the price you sell it for should be no different.
Shaan'ti Hokai (Kauri) 
I think they need to make mining and resource harvesting in general, a complete and seperate proffession. As it stands now its just "tacked" onto artisan. Allowing anyone to use a harvestor is ok, but if they had to "spend" 15 skill points for "Prospector" and then another 5 for surveying 1, so they would know where to put the things, there would be less people doing it. Maintentance costs should be based on skill level, leave BER alone.
If you use the real world as an example, gunsmiths dont mine and smelt their own ore, thats laughable, miners dont build the mining equipment they use. More proffesions is whats needed all around, to create more interdependancy, I mean it is a multi-player game.
A mining profession would do more dmg.
Who wants to be a miner?
And only the Crafters thats ontop of things buy the resources they need.
We have lots of Master AS/WS that won't ever again touch a harvester.
People come and offer them premium resources.
Now for those crafters that dont have the economy for this, they will be in a serious pinch.
All their combat skills would have to be dropped, so they could mine their own resources,
that will make the game less interesting for them. And would damage the economy further.
Architects are a special breed, we need resources in quantities (90%) and not quality.
Thats why we have a bit different view on this.
Now correct me if I'm wrong. But as of now I disagree strongly against a mining profession,
and not to mention nerfing Harvesters. Beside, before a nerf could be implemented.
I would have made all the schematics necesary to keep on making harvesters with current
rating for many years to come...I'm in it for the money!
Put yourself in the position and then decide whether it makes sense, that is what I usualy do. For instance, if resources decayed what would I do? Well, I would take all my best quality resources and turn them into components at once, rather than wait until I needed them. I would take all my grind quality resources and make wall modules and walls out of them. I would have little need to save up my resources, I would only need HQ resources for the final combines so I would keep a stock of this, if this reached the point where it was about to decay I would either run off a batch of structures or whatever, or make more components with it all. So what has changed, not a lot, I still have good quality stuff, but it has been converted from the raw resource into components or structures that won't decay.
What does that achieve? Resource decay would have no effect on me, there is no reason why it should effect anybody, except the risk would be that prices for HQ resources will be driven up as they will be scarce by definition, there will be none stockpiled and any that is harvested will have a limited shelf life, so 'buy now at 20cpu' you won't find it in 2 weeks time will be the new buzzword on the trade forums.
DarkenJal wrote:
Zutan wrote:
Does it cost you more to extract the so called "premium" resources? Of course not.. so the price you sell it for should be no different.
On avg a medium harvester costs at most 2 cpu when you factor power andmaintenance. You can make a pretty fat profit charging 3 or 4 cpu.
Its the people selling resources for 10 to 40+ cpu that drive up the cost of things like weapons and armor and makes it very hard for somewhat new artisans to get materials. Just because some people *can* pay that much doesnt mean anyone should. All it does is make it near impossible for casual types, non-crafters and people that dont want to spend their whole day running missions to buy anything.
EXACTLY!! That is the reason I sell for no more than 4, no less than 3.
Actually this goes against all laws of economics and makes no sense guys. You base your pricing off of demand and not cost. Whether you sell at a loss or not depends on the market. The reason my extremely large resource business sells everything at 3cpu - it's easy and this is a game. If my costs went up somehow, I'd charge the same because I don't think people would buy them if I raised the price. If my costs went down, I wouldn't sell them for less unless the market changed and I had to.
The only reason I sell all resources at 3cpu is convenience. I found it was a price I would get quite a lot of sales from so I kept it there. If all of the sudden people stopped buying resources at 3, I would try 2.5 and then 2. But cost of manufacturing should have nothing to do with the price you set for anything in an economical simulation.